Dear organlearners,
Howard Jacobs <hjacobs@gte.net> wrote in LO14885:
> As many of you know, one of the criticisms of Senge's concept of a
> learning organization is that it is an abstraction, a theoretical
> construct, if you will. Some articles have been written about how to
> identify a learning organization -- stressing teamwork, etc. Is anyone
> familiar with descriptors, measuring instruments, etc. to help identify
> "how close" an organization is to becoming or where they are in the
> journey?
A few months ago I stressed the importance of metaphors to describe the
non-linear, irreversble nature of creativity in general and learning in
particular. I will now describe a metaphor which may be used ta answer
Howard's question: "How close is an organisation to becoming a LO?" I call
it the "Forest vs Plantation" metaphor.
Assume Bill Gates of Microsoft calls you in utmost secrecy and tells you
that he has sleepness nights - that Microsoft is heading towards a fatal
disaster - that he offers you one billion dollars to help him to avert
that dissaster. But also assume that money means nothing to you - that
helping those who needs help is much more important - that their definite
healing is most important to you. How will you decide whether to help Bill
Gates or not? What will influence your decision: the billion dollars or
the challenge to tackle this complex task? Will you help him if you know
intuitively, but for sure, that fatal disaster will be inevitable despite
your facilitation?
Learning is the process which distinguish a LO from other organisations.
Ubuntu (metanoia) is the quality which distinguish a LO structure from
other organisations. Thus it appears to be very simple to guide an
organisation into a LO with ubuntu - each member has to become a learner!
Unfortunately, life is complex. Realising our wishes often results in
failures. Why?
We have to distinguish the initial "structure" of the organisation from
the "process" learning which will function on it. We also have to
distinguish that initial structure from the output structure - hopefully a
LO with ubuntu as its highest quality. Our problem is thus to recognise
whether such an initial structure has the potential to become an LO with
ubuntu. Surely, we cannot expect to train any parrot to catch mice - its a
job for the owl.
Or will we try to make an owl out of a parrot at all costs? Will we
really try to create an artificial owl? We have a saying in my mother
tongue "slim van sy baas" which means literally "clever catches his boss".
Are we not too clever?
What do we mean by creating an object artificially? An artificial object
would not have emerged on its own accord, i.e. spontaneously. Its
existence had to be forged by external work and control. Furthermore, to
try and forge higher order emergences out of an artificial object usually
results in fatal immergences. On the other hand, a natural object has the
potential to emerge to higher order qualities, although it often fail to
do so. Whereas it often fails to do so, the artificial object will nearly
always fail to do do. Can we forge the emergence of an LO out of an
artificial organisation?
How will we then at least get the gut feeling that an organisation is
primarily natural or artificial? When we have to tackle an immensely
complex organisation, our articulated knowledge is of little help because
of its linitedness. It is then when we have to draw heavily on our own
tacit knowledge (intuition). For example, many of us will agree that the
family is an example of a natural organisation. Some of us will agree that
the nation is another example of a natural organisation. But what about
Bill Gates' Microsoft - our assumed example? Is this organisation any less
artificial than the products which it has to produce?
How will we recognise such tacit knowledge? I hope the forest-plantation
metaphor will be of help. It is based on a real experience which my
granddaughter Jessica (then 4 years old) and I had.
My wife, Jessica and I were driving along a 700km journey to the coast.
About halfway we began to encounter immense stretches of tree plantations.
I fell into a deep contemplation while my wife and Jessica chatted.
I was thinking about our country - the fall of apartheid and the
artificial plantations we speeded past. It was the white people's idea to
plant trees over millions of acres of land barren from any trees. We
jealously conserved our minute natural forests. The plantations were a
white government's venture. The great majority of workers it employed were
black people. In each plantation millions of trees of the same age were
planted in a regular grid. They are all of the same clone by making rooted
cuttings of one original selected tree over and over again. That tree was
either a pine tree (originally from America) or an eucalyptus tree
(originally from Australia). None of the original clones were indigenous
to Africa.
Yet I was not happy about these plantations. I knew how many small,
indigenous flora and fauna had to give way to these trees. I knew how the
flow of water to the rivers had been damaged irreversibly by these thirsty
trees. This water should have reached black societies in the drier regions
of KwaZulu-Natal. But now they are fight among each other merely to
subsist.
My wife saved me from my contemplation which was becoming quite
depressive. She said: "Oupa, Jessica wants to know to whom this forest
belongs." (oupa=grandfather). I have been listening with half an ear to
their conversation. Each time when we came upon a new plantation, Jessica
wanted to know to whom the forest belongs. My wife dug into all the names
of stories which Jessica knew such as Red Riding Hood, Goldy Locks and
Simba. Each time my wife had to tell the story about the name. She
eventually ran out of names and fuel. It was then when she called upon me
for help.
I was tired myself. I decided to turn off into a plantation so that
Jessica could experience it. I wanted to lay down in the dark shade, my
wife preparing some coffee and Jessica enjoying herself. But first we had
to walk a little bit in the "forest". After about twenty yards Jessic
suddenly grabbed my hand. I sensed her distress. I asked her: "Jessica,
are you afraid?" She whispered: "Yes oupa". I asked her why? She said:
"Oupa, this is not a forest." I asked her why? She said: "There are no
birds to sing beautiful songs for us."
She was right. The cloned trees in every plantation were about the only
form of life to be observed by her. Forget about what scientists observe
with their clever instruments. Concentrate on the things which this little
girl expected to observe - but they were not there. Beauty. Ubuntu. Their
absence was a forebode to this young girl. She felt DANGER in the
PLANTATION.
I still owe her the experience of UBUNTU in a FOREST.
The organisation which will call upon you to facilitate its transformation
into an LO - does it want to be a forest or a plantation? Look for the
vital signs.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>